Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: gsisak Date: Nov 29, 2003 9:00am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: mp3 and broader-based access

i don't see how that link is relavant in the least. either way. i vote for 30 seconds samples only. i'm already "hoarding" about 5 shows i taped because i know if i release them to the general public them they'll end up on here. don't want anything i've taped on here till i know for sure it won't be converted to mp3 or some other crap. so basically 30 second samples or don't expect to see any of my of shows.
george

This post was modified by gsisak on 2003-11-29 17:00:34

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: woostahDave Date: Nov 30, 2003 10:22am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: mp3 and broader-based access

that post is extremely relevant. maybe tapers would not have such an elitist view on "contaminating" their lossless audio if they went a week without broadband and gave up their gigs of hard drives and cdrs. pretty much every band's taping policy emphasizes sharing and spreading the music rather than keeping it away from the masses for matters of pride. i feel if some bands read the selfish posts threatening to demand the removal of all shows uploaded here, they would strongly reconsider allowing that person to tape their shows.

anyways, the original source can always be found here, so anyone concerned about lossless audio could easily find it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dgrayshn Date: Nov 30, 2003 11:46pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: mp3 and broader-based access

hmm what did we "elitist" tapers/traders do before broadband.. we used snail mail...we invested time in it because it was worth waiting for..

Actually there are many many more shows out there which you will never hear because there are some folks out there who dont ever convert there shows for the masses.. they just keep them on dat in their apt/house and they collect dust.. so you should be thankful to people who take the time to convert the shows and post them for your enjoyment.. they dont get paid.. and they end up spending a lot more than they ever intended.. if they dont get any legal rights at all..they least they deserve is some respect...

Its also ridiculous to say anyone is cutting anyone off from the music.. its is readily available you just have to invest some time to get at it..

We already have gone forward with broader access.. because most of this music had only previously been available online on ftp sites..

Do we want quality or quanitity is the real question... and when its music Quality should win everytime!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: woostahDave Date: Dec 1, 2003 4:10am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: mp3 and broader-based access

I do appreciate the work tapers do to get us the music. i would be right there with you if i had the time and money to invest. but i do not think that gives you the right to dictate policy. it should be up to the community and the bands.

"Do we want quality or quanitity is the real question..."

most people here can have their cake and eat it. we do not have to choose between quality and quantity. I have about 15 spindles worth of shns sitting next to my computer and about 100 gigs on my hard drive. it would be unfair for me to insist that quality should always trump quantity when i am able to amass such a collection. mp3's are meant for those without the means or the equipment to enjoy shn.

"when its music Quality should win everytime!"

quality is extremely subjective. most people outside of our tight circle would consider the crowd noise, hiss and reverb of live shows to be far worse problems than mp3 compression. should we not allow aud recordings when sbd's are available? or the other way around, since some people prefer the ambience of aud? it is all about choice. you should not worry about mp3's infiltrating your trading circles, since I am sure you are very careful about your sources and would be able to detect any mp3 contamination immediately.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: zorak Date: Dec 1, 2003 9:25am
Forum: etree Subject: q vs. q and q vs. q

The divide is almost palpable.

Quality vs. Quality:

An air compressor whirrs occasionally in the garage. A needle floats on a cushion of air across a pristine piece of vinyl. A tube amp causes you to glance to the left because you heard the vocalists mic stand slide a little across the stage.

vs.

Perhaps instead you were listening to a 24bit/96Khz digital recording which caught almost as many subtle moments.

Or,

Bela Fleck seemed to be playing ping pong with Zakir Hussain. They were in a once in a lifetime groove.

vs.

They all forgot which song they were supposed to be playing. The drummer wandered back in time and the rest had no idea what planet they were on. Phil went strolling around the pastures gathering them all up and leading them home.


Quantity vs. Quantity:

16 track 2" tape. Portable? Accessible?

vs.

24bit 96Khz download. 2GB/hour.

vs.

?

Or,

Using the original recording I was able to determine more precisely the hand motions used during the transitions the theramin player was making. Never before have I picked up such detail.

vs.

For the past 10 weeks I've been using my daily alloted 2 hours of internet access to download over 10 shows. It has been really hard trying to get downloads to complete over a 33.6 connection, but a year ago there was no internet connectivity. If you wonder why, in a place so far away, I spend so much time downloading this new music, don't. You won't wonder once you have the ability to download the music we play here.


The Q's have it!!

Musicians that have a liberal taping policy have allowed for the spread of art. Tapers are artists in their own right. They capture moments in history. Moments that include the art on stage as well as the electricity in the room.

Those moments in history are important. They are as important as books, movies, speeches, etc... they are a part of the human experience.

Technology has allowed those moments to not only be recorded, but also to be shared.

We need to tread carefully when discussing access. Technological penetration is not ubiquitous. Bandwidth is not ubiquitous.

Artistic integrity is what I sense is the greatest fear that tapers face. Their name is attached to a recording of a performance. Just like the musician expects the taped recording to reflect reasonably accurately the live performance, the taper wants to ensure that the quality of the recording is preserved as it spreads slowly across the entire planet.

The availability of live music recordings is a great thing. I don't think anyone wants to prevent a group of people in Uganda from listening to the String Cheese Incident. The question is how to accomplish this while still maintaining and recognizing the contributions of the taper and the musician.

If it really is about the art and the impact a recording has upon its listeners, then the tapers are invaluable heros. By the same token, that show should be heard by all... whether they are dubbing tapes in the basement or hopping across mountaintops in Laos across a pedal powered internet.

I'm not tied to either side of the issue, simply trying to expand the horizon beyond the medium itself and into the areas that will matter 5 or 10 years from now. Will the world be a better place because a larger percentage of the global population was able to listen to Cowboy Junkies?

(The question is rhetorical. The answer is yes)


This post was modified by zorak on 2003-12-01 17:25:10

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: InfiniteOhms Date: Dec 1, 2003 1:17pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: q vs. q and q vs. q

i would just like to say that that is the most confusing post i have ever read.... Will you explain the phisics of a quark to me ;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bisq Date: Dec 1, 2003 1:05am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: mp3 and broader-based access

Do we want quality or quanitity is the real question... and when its music Quality should win everytime!


I don't see this as a quantity/quality issue. Even if mp3s were hosted the shn/flacs would be here as well so anyone who cared could get the lossless audio. As has been previously stated, if you get your music from lossless archives (which this one would still be) or from trades from trusted sources with documented md5s then there is no problem. This is what I do and it seems that most people on here probably do this as well. It seems to me that the major concern then is over people burning the mp3s to cds and trading the lossy audio thus causing degradation to the trading pool right?? First of all, this is already happening right now regarless of what anyone wants. I know a lot of people who listen to mp3s and if someone wanted a copy, they will make them one. But most people who listen to and deal in mp3s don't trade very much anyway, they download the music from the internet obviously (thats why its mp3 duh). Second, someone who is willing to accept a trade from someone who has an mp3 sourced show obviously doesn't care that much about quality. So why make them care, we already know where to get the lossless audio. Any serious trader wouldn't bother trading with them, they would have higher standards. Just as right now there are people sharing mp3s and it doesn't bother us because it doesn't affect us or the preservation of lossless audio that many of us are dedicated to. I would be against archiving mp3s if no companion lossless format was available, unless requested by an artist.

But of course it doesn't matter because of the 'take my ball and go home' attitude that is so prevalent here. I've got a question, if so many people are so 'concerned' about the trading pool, if your tapes are so great and you withhold them from wider circulation allowing lower quality sources to circulate, isn't that degrading the trading pool as well? I know from personal experience that an mp3 of a good source still sounds better than a lossless copy of a much inferior source.

peace,
Brandon

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: NickDiegel Date: Dec 4, 2003 5:20pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: mp3 and broader-based access

As has been previously stated, if you get your music from lossless archives (which this one would still be) or from trades from trusted sources with documented md5s then there is no problem.

==========

This archive can *not* remain lossless if there are mp3's on the site. Mp3 = lossy... any loss = lossy... lossless = no loss...

I'm just glad I only post sbd's that I record now...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Tyler Date: Nov 30, 2003 10:50am
Forum: etree Subject: id3 tags?

"anyways, the original source can always be found here, so anyone concerned about lossless audio could easily find it. "

exactly. I don't know much about the process, but i assume info could be added to the mp3 files as an 'id3' tag right? perhaps since the details pages are static, each mp3 could have a part about where the mp3 came from and how it was from the original master .shn source which could be gotten for free at http://www.archive.org/audio/.... you know? file / song names are probably too much work, but i think some sort of pointer back to the archive with the mp3 would be good, so if one file is floating out there someone who wants the entire show in .shn quality can find it if they don't know about the archive.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: woostahDave Date: Nov 30, 2003 11:49am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: id3 tags?

that sounds like a good idea, although it still would not address the tapers concern that someone could burn the files to cd, rip the audio and then pass them off as originals. isn't it fairly easy to detect such "undercover" mp3's? is there a program that does this?

There is a music site out there (to remain nameless) which allows you to download lossless audio files, but can also encode, on the fly, into mp3 and ogg at any number of bit rates so the downloader can choose his format. this might be a good solution (although difficult for the programmers). it is no different than someone who downloads the shns and then converts them to mp3 on their computer. i am sure this happens all the time and tapers cannot control it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dgrayshn Date: Nov 30, 2003 11:21pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: id3 tags?

Sure no one can control that but atleast the downloader has to take the time to learn how to deal with SHN/Flac and how to convert it to mp3... if they can go through all that and still disregard all the community standards then they are helpless.. but if just one person was to go through all that and learn that its ok to trade shows in SHN/Flac and only ok to have the mp3's for personal use then thats a victory... that victory will be impossible if we go down his proposed road...

In my opinion what some people are calling borader access is more like making us more lazy!

There is a saying.. perhaps something everyone needs to repeat to themselves on a day to day basis(me included) in this world off instant information..
"anything good takes time"


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 1, 2003 12:12am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: id3 tags?

Beyond "lazy", beyond even trading, see
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10441

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dgrayshn Date: Dec 1, 2003 12:55am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: id3 tags?

sure thats a touching story and I mean no disrespect to your father.. but how is one able to repsond to something like that.. id feel better reading it if it was non biased otherwise it feels tainted in my view. Because its very obvious where you stand on this issue.

*just pointing out my view, not attacking anyone*

actually I've been debating for months now with a good friend of mine who works in a library and like me is a taper... he sees this similar to the posters he works with.. he provides a master image in tiff format which is huge like SHN and then smaller samples in jpeg for example..

I can see where he has a point that its worthwile to have a copy for both purposes like brewster pointed out in his post.. but as far as the archive goes there needs to be a bigger disctinction... perhaps building an interface which allows users to stream mp3's but NOT download them and then having the SHN/Flac for people to download..
I think there is wiggle room when I say stream so thats its not perceived to be a radio station but who knows maybe I am wrong..


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 1, 2003 3:32am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: individual perspective-shifting

its very obvious where you stand on this issue.

Right Matt, just as it's obvious from your posts where you stand, and from some other contributors about where they stand on various points. ;) But don't worry, although I help volunteer here, I'm certainly not a person to make the directional decisions here, I'm just one of the discussers along with you. As friendly debaters, we'd each like to get our point well across. :)

Y'know, as one of the earlier ones to push SHN and as keeper of a SHN FAQ for some years now, I've been in the trading trenches along with you pushing for "quality training" and raising the "SHN, not mp3" banner within our little trading community. Within the last couple years, my thinking has evolved beyond that because of a couple of big factors:

-As Marco said last month, it's now clear that "we won the war" in the trading community- anything else is just mopup. ;) IMO there's enough critical mass of clued-in people now to train the new traders who may be confused about what we trade and why we trade it. We have a mighty weight of trading culture, so many help resources to support that, and so many nagging voices to point traders to them. ;) That is cool.

-I've seen how internet music access has shifted so dramatically in our national/global culture that it's- amazingly!- dwarfed the internet trading community that basically started it all, even though our community is mighty on its own. I have my dad's example, a whole different-style example with a brother that I won't go into now ;) and there are so many other stories out there, from "regular people." They've swayed me.

Diana "the SHN Queen" (heh)

This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-12-01 11:32:19

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Nov 29, 2003 11:15am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: mp3 and broader-based access

So the "walk around angry" part isn't even relevant? (Just funnin' ya!) ;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rhcp1513 Date: Nov 30, 2003 7:41am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: mp3 and broader-based access

I'm not a taper myself, although I did try to tape a show once (it didn't turn out so well), but I can understand their concern about quality presevation. I'm probably a minority here on the LMA because I use a 56k modem. When I first found this place, I was really turned off by the fact that everything was shn and not mp3. But over time I've gotten to like the fact that it is shn. In this way, somebody can't just walk in off the street and download music. They have to invest time in finding a program that recognizes shn's.
This allows for a person to acquire a respect for the lossless sound quality. I'm willing to wait out the hour to download a 4 minute song if I know the quality is good.
I'm totally against the idea of mp3 show's on the LMA, but short clips of songs in mp3 format sounds like a wonderful idea. This would give a madem user like myself an opportunity to hear what they are going to download first, instead of jumping in head first and finding out that the recoding quality of the show is less than desirable.
While I wouldn't go as far as the tapers who would abandon the archive if mp3's were hosted, I would be dissapointed.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: The Sound Hound Date: Nov 30, 2003 8:27am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: mp3 and broader-based access

Might it be possible to make restrictions such as bit rate and source for mp3s? I know from experience that 192kbps mp3 files made from quality sources sound exactly like those quality sources. It might be some sort of compromise to restrict mp3 files to only 192kbps or higher bit rates made only from concert masters or shn/flac files. The mp3s would be still relatively large for dial up users, but not nearly as large as actual shn or flac files.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dgrayshn Date: Nov 30, 2003 10:50pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: mp3 and broader-based access

yeah thats like saying.. well they dont have to be diamonds they can just be very very nice glass :-)

I like the view pointed out just 2 posts above... the fact that far too many people are assuming that people will just take the mp3's and not trade them... its hard enough to educate people when they are just SHN's.. brewsters long post about wanting broader access does not point out that there are many SHN communities like the DMB community which are welcoming new members everyday... because its in SHN/Flac they are forced to learn more about the computer and with a built up community many people are willing to teach others and give B+P's and most importantly build up the standards of the community not bring them down..

I also think its interesting that it has not been pointed out that hard drives are getting smaller/cheaper... Highspeed is becoming available almost everywhere..CD's are still the standard but for how long.. DVD-Audio is starting to take a tiny market share and more and more people are looking at getting DVD-Audio players.. not to mention more and more 24 bit shows which will be much more common in 2004... WHy is it not reasonable to see SHN/Flac as being the trading communities standard..?? (Oh wait, it is the standard)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 11, 2003 4:25am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: mp3 and broader-based access

don't want anything i've taped on here till i know for sure it won't be converted to mp3

George, how about this latest potential compromise, which would accomodate your basic aim?

http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10746

Reasoned reply (if any) should go to that thread, not here. Thanks!